Sensor vs glass quality vs MP

So, what I'm gathering here is, for "general" photography, with "typical" lighting and "normal" print sizes, the sensor size plays a small role, and the glass remains the primary concern, just as in film?

I don't se it that way. The better "full-frame" d-slr models have larger sensors, with larger pixels, which are more-efficient light collectors, and they give better overall imaging performance than do smaller sensors, with much,much smaller pixels. The difference in overall image quality between a "full-frame" camera with a high-quality sensor and a crop-size sensor (one of any of any umber of smaller than FX sizes) is pretty substantial at times. The larger sensor cameras, when paired with the same lens as a smaller-sensor camera, will create images that have higher resolution, and lower image noise, and often, better color depth and better dynamic range, than small-sensor cameras. All of the lens testing web sites have tests, many tests, that demonstrate that the SAME lens on a FF or "FX" sensor delivers better optical performance than that lens used on a small-sensor camera.

Sensor age, design, and "generation" also play a BIG role too!!! OLDER, first-generation FF sensors, like say the 11 megapixel one in the original Canon 1Ds---these days, that sensor's 11 megapixel, full-frame image quality can be equalled, or bettered, by many APS-C cameras...cameras that are now like eight or nine years newer, and which have almost double, to more than double, the pixel count--PLUS new electronics and new software!

Trust me...mothball the F2's and move to a new-fangled digital pro Nikon body!
 
Also, going back to your original post, the reason that mega-pixels SEEM to be important, (or at least, more important) is that they are dummy-friendly. Marketers can trumpet "15 megapixels!" and then "18 Megapixels!" and then "21 MEGAPIXELS!" and, if you do not understand the mechanics of the thing, that is interpreted to read "My 18 is better than your 15" by the great unwashed masses. It's much more difficult to convince people of the superiority of LD glass, fluorite, ultrasonic focusing motors, and things like lines of resolution when you're selling a lens. Thus, MP becomes the benchmark by which many people judge a digital camera.

I'd trade my fairly decent 18MP 50D for a 12MP 5D Mark I classic any day of the week, and I bet many others would too.
 
And I wouldn't trade my 36mpxl D800 for anything. There's real benefits to higher megapixel counts including finer noise details making noise reduction trivial, and my ability to use DX glass without disadvantage

But still on the original post, film wasn't all about the lens, it was also about the choice of film. Various films produced various grains. You wanted the ultimate in detail, an ISO50 portrait film was usually the option (think high megapixels), wanted ISO3200 you'd end up with grain out the wazoo, the lens on your camera didn't really matter when shooting Ilford Delta1600 pushed to 3200.

Thing of digital the same way except you can't change your film. The sensor is equally as important as the camera, and anyone who wishes to challenge this is more than welcome to strap a 85mm f/1.2L to my webcam, and naturally visa versa. A Nikon D4 with a ****ty kit lens will result in quite a poor looking picture.
 
Ok, I think I got it. The lens is most important...no, wait, Sensor, no it's the mega...yeh, the hell with it. Thanks for clearing that up.:lol:

The one thing I think everyone still agrees on is, the camera is still just a light proof box, although that "box" does seems more important in digital times then in film. While there were a few features that set the mechanical film camera's apart, it was nothing compared to digitals. I specified "mechanical" because in the later, electronic, years of film, that line became much more blurry as more features were incorporated.

<clearing the floor for the next debate>
 
I think the most important thing is the person pressing the button. I have a Canon EOS 1000D, only 10.1mp. With good glass I can easily take very nice pictures. I have friends with cameras like 60D and 7D. I don't see much difference in quality between their pics and mine.
 
Also, going back to your original post, the reason that mega-pixels SEEM to be important, (or at least, more important) is that they are dummy-friendly. Marketers can trumpet "15 megapixels!" and then "18 Megapixels!" and then "21 MEGAPIXELS!" and, if you do not understand the mechanics of the thing, that is interpreted to read "My 18 is better than your 15" by the great unwashed masses. It's much more difficult to convince people of the superiority of LD glass, fluorite, ultrasonic focusing motors, and things like lines of resolution when you're selling a lens. Thus, MP becomes the benchmark by which many people judge a digital camera.

I'd trade my fairly decent 18MP 50D for a 12MP 5D Mark I classic any day of the week, and I bet many others would too.

Absolutely. Dont forget that all "mega pixels" are not created equal. A "pixel" is not a unit of measure. Higher end camera sensers have larger pixels and can cappture more information. Moral= A 21MP camera may not capture a higher quality of picture as a 18MP camera.

Pixel

Image Resolution

Pixel Size
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top